Socio-economic status describes a person’s educational attainment, occupation and income. Depending on the cases, it can describe a single factor of the three or a combination of all dimensions. (Nocon, Keil, Willich 2007, 401.) Effects of a socio-economic status on people’s health behaviour have been researched rather extensively.
However, there has appeared quite a variation among both the health related factors, and the dimensions of the socio-economic status, which these studies have addressed. In addition, some studies have examined directly self-reported health instead of health related behaviour (e.g. Kunst et al. 2005). Despite the variation, many studies have identified some sort of association between a person’s socio-economic status or some individual dimension of it, and health behaviour (e.g. Nocon, Keil, Willich 2007;
Kantomaa, Tammelin, Näyhä, Taanila 2007; Stalsberg and Pedersen 2010; Borodulin, Mäkinen, Prättälä 2010; Gidlow, Johnston, Crone, Ellis, James 2006). Many studies addressing inequalities in health related to a person's socio-economic status, have used the term 'socio-economic position' instead of the term 'socio-economic status'. Even though some researchers have argued that these two terms do not have exactly the same meaning, the terms are often used interchangeably to refer the same issue (Galobardes, Shaw, Lawlor, Lynch and Smith 2006, 7).
A comprehensive European survey including 10 different European countries (Finland among them) studied self-reported health of people combined with their socio-economic status. The findings indicated that health inequalities do exist in Europe relating to people’s socio-economic status. However, the same study also suggested that there has been no increase in health inequalities in the Nordic countries within the 10 years’ study period. According to the researchers, this could be attributed to the fact that the Nordic countries, as the welfare states, have been able to buffer many of the adverse effects of economic crises to health inequalities. (Kunst et al. 2005, 295-305.)
International studies which have examined the association between the socio-economic status of a person and their health behaviour within the different age groups have end up with rather diverse conclusions in regard to different dimensions of the socio-economic status. Gidlow et al. (2006) conducted a review of the published researches which had
34
examined physical activity in relation to socio-economic position (SEP) in adults. They included twenty-eight cross-sectional and five longitudinal studies almost half of which were from America. Due to several weaknesses in the researches, they found consistent, but not strong evidence that socio-economic position was associated with physical activity. However there appeared clear evidence of differences between socio-economic indicators. The association between the educational attainment and physical activity had a tendency to be stronger compared to the association between physical activity and income, and physical activity and the occupational social class. In other words, the people with higher educational level tended to be more physically active compared to people with lower educational level. Out of the three dimensions, income produced the least consistent result and in spite of the several possibly explaining factors, the researchers concluded that income might be less associated with physical activity.
Even though Gidlow et al. (2006) did conclude that there appears to be an association between one’s socio-economic position and physical activity, yet they acknowledged that in spite of individuals’ circumstances, the socio-physical environment can influence physical activity. They also called for studies with objective physical activity measurements, and a greater consistency in socio-economic position measurements. In addition, they notified that the accuracy of the measurements varies according to region or country, and ethnicity and environment.
However, the opposite evidence disputing Gidlow et al’s findings on the relationship of the socio-economic position and health behaviour do exist. A German study comprising the sample of 7,124 subjects, found that out of the three health behaviour variables identified as smoking, physical activity and obesity, the physical activity was the only variable which had independent effects with all three dimension of socio-economic status (SES). (Nocon, Keil, Willich 2007.)
International studies have produced some noteworthy evidence concerning the association between socio-economic status and physical activity, whereas the research results in Finland have been more moderate. The studies in Finland have mostly concentrated on examining the association between the SES and physical activity in adolescents and adults. Probably one of the most comprehensive researches regarding SES and physical activity in Finland is done by Mäkinen (2010) who investigated the
35
association between the SES and physical activity from the three population-based datasets over the period of twenty-five years.
Mäkinen (2010) examined the association between SES and three dimensions of physical activity: occupational physical activity, commuting physical activity and leisure-time physical activity. Intriguingly, his findings concerning the association between the SES and physical activity among Finns were somewhat contradictory with Gidlow’s et al. (2006) review which focused primarily on American studies. Mäkinen (2010, 47-58) did find a statistically significant association between household incomes and both leisure-time and commuting physical inactivity during the whole research period. An interesting anomaly was found among female manual workers who were more physically active while commuting compared to their counterparts employed in white-collar jobs. In addition to the contrary findings in regard to household income, Mäkinen (2010) found no statistically significant association either between leisure-time physical activity or occupational physical activity and educational level, unlike Gidlow et al. (2006). However, the educational differences in leisure-time physical activity among adults were explained directly and indirectly by childhood socio-economic position and adolescence’s sports and exercise behaviour. In the low-educated group, childhood participation in competitive sports was associated with leisure-time physical activity in adulthood whereas the highly-educated group exercising in late adolescence was associated with the leisure-time physical activity in adulthood (Mäkinen 2010, 58).
Mäkinen’s (2010) and Gidlow’s et al. (2006) contradictory results are prominent in many ways. On one hand, they stand for the significance of standardised measurements of both socio-economic status and physical activity. On the other hand, they reflect the dominance of the socio-physical environment in this research area. In interpreting the results, it seems to be important to consider the radical differences in the level of income among Americans, and the educational system and access to education among Finnish and Americans. Despite these interpretations, there are counter arguments to Mäkinen’s (2010) findings also in Finland.
Interestingly the counter argument relates to young adults, the main target group of this master’s thesis. Rovio et al. (2009, 27) used a population-based survey including a sample of 3,245 subjects aged 15 to 64 years. Their purpose was to find out whether it
36
would be possible to identify different sub-groups among young adults who were considered physically inactive. Utilising a cluster and factor analyses, they were able to identify seven different groups among physically inactive young adults. Two of the identified groups “immortal young men” and “young student women” had nearly 50%
of students in them. Based on their findings, Rovio et al. (2009, 32) concluded that young adults’ physical inactivity cannot be related to the socio-economic status of these people alone, but rather be explained by many other factors such as situations in life and work and other health related habits. In addition, in their opinion there appears to be a group of young adults in Finland to whom physical activity is not a natural part of their daily lives and this could be due to the young adults’ culture and way of life.
Many studies have investigated the relationship between the socio-economic status of an individual and physical activity. The research findings have been consistent in a way that most of the studies have indicated the association between the SES and physical activity but the significance of the different dimensions of SES have varied. The association between income and physical activity has also been found in Finland, but there appear also some contradictory findings. Furthermore, there is a lack of studies investigating the association between the SES and physical activity among particular groups, such as the students in higher education in Finland.
At the same time, the association between higher education students SES and physical activity is not easy to study. The difficulty related to complexity to define SES of a higher education student. Obviously, there appear problems with defining educational attainment and occupation status. Moreover, income level of higher education students in Finland is far from unequivocal, but is often composed of multiple sources that are difficult to measure at the same time. Furthermore, higher education students' livelihood is often distributed unevenly during a year or years of studies and the financial situation is often experienced to be temporary. So, the next chapter will discuss about diversity of higher education students' livelihood in Finland.
37
6. DIVERSITY OF LIVELIHOOD AMONG FINNISH HIGHER EDUCATION